From: Gerry Armstrong <gerry@gerryarmstrong.org>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: L. Ron Hubbard never asked psychs for help!
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 12:41:19 +0200
Message-ID: <573lgvsjga3t61i1s6dpkuc5l2vupk8rsm@4ax.com>
References: <8385d874.0306280756.2f2ca7c3@posting.google.com> <bdl7qh $8rb$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk> <MPG.196bf3a81dbc721989721@news.dallas.sbcglobal.net> <vg98t9htq1sc1e @corp.supernews.com> <b05bgvci9f3dped47ihkit7q5jrund9uge@4ax.com> <aHVja2xl.d622c8b0995f0c66efdd54fad3a0e01c@1057377806.cotse.net> <bdhdgvkk3r6puvfds66t07v8nescf5uhlm@4ax.com> <3F06EA1F.3040608@cox.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.7/32.534
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.229.46
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.88.229.46
X-Trace: 8 Jul 2003 06:41:23 -0400, 217.88.229.46
X-Original-Trace: 8 Jul 2003 06:41:23 -0400, 217.88.229.46
Organization: Lightlink Internet
Lines: 412
Path: news2.lightlink.com
Xref: news2.lightlink.com alt.religion.scientology:1625669

On Sat, 05 Jul 2003 08:09:19 -0700, grouchomatic
<grouchomatic@cox.net> wrote:

>
>
>Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Jul 2003 20:03:26 -0800 (AKDT), "blackdog"
>> <blackdog-no-spam@hoy.cotse.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Gerry Armstrong wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, just to head off one or another op's claim that the "Admissions,"
>>>>or, as they're also called, the "Affirmations," are forged, see where
>>>>in the cultists' criminal contract they acknowledge their
>>>>authenticity.
>>>> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/mutual-release-
>>>
>>>1986.html#7Eb
>>>
>>>
>>> Your case would be a bit stronger if we could see a scan of the
>>>actual, signed release form rather than a mock-up of it.
>>
>>
>> It isn't a form, but here is a scan of the "contract."
>> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/c420153-mutual-release.pdf
>
>I'm sure you've been asked this before, but did your attorney or their
>attorney ever raise the issue of the legality of entering into a
>settlement and non-disclosure agreement that is "contrary to public
>policy" or that breaches "the publics right to know."
>
>There is a provision in the California Civil Code as there is in the
>Federal Code that makes such agreements not only unenforceable, but
>prohibits the entering into of such agreements in such cases were the
>information being withheld from the public either conceals a crime, the
>intent to commit a crime, or any other unlawful conduct or any conduct
>which might result in injury or death. AFAIK or remember, there is a
>pretty broad listing of things that you cannot agree to conceal. The
>court itself is supposed to refuse to sanction such agreements.
>
>The way I read the settlement you are required not to disclose your
>knowledge of any of their unlawful acts and that you're not to cooperate
>with any governmental agency investigating their unlawful acts. When
>they sued you for breach of contract did you raise any affirmative
>defenses based upon the unenforceability of such provisions?
>
>Grouch

I was defended by attorney Ford Greene
http://www.csj.org/infoserv_profile/greene_ford.htm
throughout most of the litigation of the "breach of contract" cases,
up until the cult obtained its summary judgment. Ford definitely
raised the public policy and the public's right-to-know issues.

You are right about the areas you're looking at. The subject
"contract" is legally unenforceable because the information it
suppresses does indeed include the commission of crimes. The
"contract" itself also has the legally impermissible purpose of
obstructing justice. Both these points have become more obvious and
more egregious, rather than less, during the lifetime of the
"contract" and the cult's efforts to judicially enforce it.

Yes, I included affirmative defenses in my answers to Scientology's
complaints, and asserted these defenses throughout the litigation. I
don't have my answers in the earlier cases webbed, but they contain
most of the affirmative defenses I've pled in my answer to the cult's
latest lawsuit, which I have webbed.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a7/armstrong-answer-cv021632.html
The affirmative defenses begin on page 42, and that's a good place to
start. It's a lot of reading, but I think it's worthwhile for an
understanding of the case, if anyone really wants to understand it.
The "public policy" defense is at p. 72. See also the affirmative
defense of "illegality" at p. 43.

It should be noted that the Marin County judge disposed of the case on
summary judgment, denying me a trial. His assertion that there were
no triable issues is so ridiculous that only malfeasance explains it.
I suggest reading my appellant's opening brief for an understanding of
the case, the judge's rulings and the triable issues.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/aob-a075027.html

My "separate statement" of disputed facts provides the facts and
details the evidence supporting my claim that there are triable issues
that could not be disposed of, except improperly of course, on summary
judgment.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/sep-stmt-20-coa-1995-09-18.html

And I suggest reading Ford's opposition to the cult's motion for
summary judgment, citing to the separate statement.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/def-opp-mtn-sadj-20th-coa.html

One of the really ridiculous interpretations of law by the judge, but
necessary in order to dispose of the case on summary judgment, and
depended on by everyone who argues the cult's position is: "First
Amendment rights may be waived by contract." See, e.g.,
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a4/appeal/aob-a075027.html

Although the statement is true, the judge's interpretation is
ludicrous. The meaning he gives to the statement is that *all* first
amendment rights may be waived by contract, and that courts can
judicially enforce the waiver of all such rights. Then the judge
refused to consider any circumstances involving any rights that might
make his interpretation and rulings based on that interpretation
erroneous. If he had considered these circumstances, rather than
dismissing my mountian of Constitutional defenses with this single
unreasoned phrase, he would have had to grant me a trial. And I don't
think that was his deal with Scientology.

Think about this. A person has a first amendment right to not pray.
He could sign a contract in which he waived his right to not pray. Is
it reasonable that the U.S. secular courts would jail the person for
not praying?

Let's say that an Islamic fundamentalist sect hires some slick lawyers
and starts contracting its parishioners to never say the name "Jesus."
One day, one of the Muslims decides to change his religion. He goes to
church and says the name. The lawyers for the Islamic organization sue
him. Would the secular court send out Sheriffs to pick him, and jail
him every time he said the name? Jesus!

Or how about if the KKK has its members sign a contract in which they
agree to never help a black person ("he will not voluntarily
assist or cooperate with any person adverse to the KKK"). One day
this fellow sheds his sheet, and goes out and helps a black person.
Will the U.S. courts throw the ex-KKKer in the slammer for helping the
black person? Would they enforce a $50,000 liquidated damages clause?
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

The class of persons that the contract states that I may not help is
in fact a religious class, created by the cult's religious dogma and
religious criteria. The parallel then would be sending a person to
jail who had signed a contract with a neo-nazi cult (perhaps to get
them to stop fair gaming his lawyer) if the person helped a Jew. Would
any U.S. court jail someone for helping Jews because it violated a
contract? Such a contract would be judicially unenforceable, a sick
joke, and would probably get its lawyer creators in serious trouble.
The Scientology cult's "contract" is just as judicially unenforceable,
and just as sick.

Because Scientology chose to call itself a "religion," it necessarily
lost much of the right it might otherwise have had to silence people
about their knowledge of and experiences in the cult. If the cult had
chosen to be a private intelligence organization it conceivably could
silence people by contract about their knowledge and experiences. But
by calling itself a "religion," the cult put itself on a level with
other "religions," wherein it is inconceivable that they would silence
anyone about his "religious knowledge" or "religious experiences." Or
rather, where it is inconceivable that any secular court would
judicially silence a person about his "religious knowledge" or
"religious experiences."

"Religious experiences," of course, must include "religious beliefs."
Just consider then a secular court ordering someone hunted down and
jailed because he expressed his belief that "God is holy," even if he
signed a "contract" with an atheist organization not to do so. Because
the Scientology cult chose to call itself a "religion," the statement
of belief that "God is holy" is on a par with the statement of belief
that "L. Ron Hubbard is a lying, vicious, monstrous scumbag," or the
statement of belief that "David Miscavige is a lying, vicious
miniscule scumbag." These are expressions of "religious belief."

When secular courts get used to jail people for expressing their
religious beliefs, there is something dreadfully wrong. And in the US
Courts' interpretation of Scientology's "contracts" there definitely
is. Since no court would jail someone for expressing his Christian
beliefs, or Jewish beliefs, or Islamic beliefs, or Buddhist beliefs,
then the Scientology "religion" is being treated with a favoritism
that makes it, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the State
"religion."

Because the subject "contract" unlawfully deprives me of so many
rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and laws, the "contract" is
an instrument, and essential evidence, in the cult's massive violation
of 18 U.S.C. §241. Other elements of this crime include the cult's
fraud and duress to obtain my signature on their "contract," including
all the fair gaming of Michael Flynn and myself before the
"settlement," all the cult's post-"settlement" fair game, all the
cult's efforts to enforce the "contract," and all the cult's efforts
to vilify me and cause me trouble internationally with their unlawful,
and unlawfully obtained Marin Superior Court orders.

The conspirators in this crime are all the "beneficaries" identified
by the "contract," which include every Scientology corporation,
organization or affiliated entity, and all of their directors,
officers, employees, volunteers, agents, lawyers and assigns. That is
a gargantuan global criminal conspiracy. But it not even slightly far
fetched when one considers that each one of these companies, entities
or individuals is also, by the same "contract," willfully and
flagrantly violating their cult's, or their "religion's," own
"creed."

Silencing me is so important to virtually every Scientologist that
they would violate their own creed and participate in a federal crime,
for which they could be imprisoned for up to ten years. It is my
belief, which I believe religiously, that among these thousands of
criminals there are a considerable number who quite willingly would go
one step further to avoid catastrophe for their cult and prison for
themselves, and have me assassinated.

Since the cult's "contract" and its enforcement, and my experiences as
fair game, constitute a federal crime, I cannot be legally silenced
about that crime any more than I could be silenced about my knowledge
of murder. Since the "contract" is for the commission of a crime,
specifically the deprivation of guaranteed rights by threat, it is
legally unenforceable, and I cannot be forced to participate in that
crime.

This would be similar to a murder contract between the murderer and
his victim. A court cannot lawfully force the victim to submit to the
murder any more than the court can force the murderer to commit
murder.

I really like, and take to heart, what LA Superior Court Judge Bruce
R. Geernaert stated when the cult tried to enforce the "contract" by
motion in 1991:

[Quote]

So my belief is Judge Breckenridge, being a very careful judge....if
he had been presented that whole agreement and if he had been asked to
order its performance, he would have dug his feet in because that is
one .... I'll say one of the most ambiguous, one-sided agreements I
have ever read. And I would not have ordered the enforcement of hardly
any of the terms if I had been asked to, even on the threat that, okay
the case is not settled.
I know we like to settle cases. But we don't like to settle cases and,
in effect, prostrate the court system into making an order which is
not fair or in the public interest.

[End Quote]
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/geernaert-1991-12-23.html

Judge Breckenridge, of course, is the LA Superior Court Judge who
presided over the litigation, Scientology v. Armstrong, LASC C 420153,
which the "contract" was to "settle." See, Scientology v. Armstrong
(1991) 232 Cal.App.3d 1060, 283 Cal.Rptr. 917.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/appeal/283cal.rptr.917.html
And see the decision, which became the judgment, from which the cult
appealed.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html

After their enforcement action was rejected by Judge Geernaert, who
had inherited the original Scientology v. Armstrong case when Judge
Breckenridge retired, Scientology forum shopped and landed the Marin
County Superior Court, which, in the person of Judge Thomas, was,
unlike Judges Breckenridge and Geernaert, very willing to prostrate
the Marin court system for Scientology and make orders that are not
fair and in the public interest.

What Judge Thomas did for Scientology in my case in fact constitutes
another federal crime, specifically 18 U.S.C. §242, the deprivation of
rights under color of law. And, of course, I cannot be legally
judicially silenced about that crime as well.

Gerry

>
>>
>>
>>> Nevertheless, if the CofS representatives *did* actually sign the
>>>mutual release as you have presented it, that is, in itself, hardly
>>>conclusive proof that Hubbard did indeed author the " Admissions" or
>>>"Affirmations."
>>
>>
>> No one was saying it was "conclusive proof." The preponderance of the
>> evidence, however, including Hubbard's own writing to the Court about
>> his documents in Scientology v. Armstrong, LA Superior Court case no.
>> C 420153, was sufficient to "prove" that he was the author. I would
>> say that the evidence presented was viewed by the judge as " conclusive
>> proof," and also by Scientology's lawyers as "conclusive proof;"
>> otherwise they would have challenged the document's authenticity.
>>
>>
>>> This document was allegedly taken by you from the LRH archives and
>>>presented as a Hubbard-authored document in the court case the CofS
>>>brought against you in the early 80s.
>>
>>
>> No, that's a false allegation. The document was given to me by Omar
>> Garrison, and parts were entered into evidence in the Scientology v.
>> Armstrong case, after authentication. See:
>> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/legal/a1/breckenridge-decision.html
>> Appendix at 14:18-21
>>
>>
>>>The little that I can find on the
>>>Net states that the document was in Hubbard's handwriting, as opposed
>>>to the typed "copy" or partial "copy" that you posted in March of 2000.
>>
>>
>> Well obviously. In fact I stated that in the post you refer to.
>>
>>
>>> What should be emphasized here is that you, and your attorney at the
>>>time, offered this as an *actual* Hubbard-authored document. My opinion
>>>is that the CofS' main concern at this time was the recovery of these
>>>stolen documents and that the idea that this and possibly other
>>>"documents" taken from the Hubbard archives might be deliberately
>>>planted pieces of disinformation was just not foremost in their minds.
>>
>>
>> No, your opinion is wrong. The cult and the attorneys knew beyond any
>> doubt that the document was Hubbard's. That is why they didn't
>> challenge its authenticity. There is no doubt that if they thought
>> they could have challenged the authenticity of any of the Armstrong
>> documents they would have done so in a flash.
>>
>> They would have been, I'm sure they realized, extremely foolish to
>> challenge the authentic document's authenticity. If they had averred
>> that it wasn't Hubbard's document, and that he therefore made no
>> possessory claim to it, the document could have been released to me on
>> the spot. I could have then made a billion copies of the authentic
>> document, which everyone would know was in fact from Hubbard. The cult
>> lawyers did the only thing they reasonably could have done -- accept
>> the truth that the document is authentic. Which, it is.
>>
>> The CL Op is what the cult came up with after admitting to the
>> authenticity of the "Admissions" and after losing the case. This cult
>> op fakes an attack on the cult's own lawyers, claiming they forged the
>> Hubbard letter to the court, and conspired with my attorneys and me
>> to, among other things, authenticate the Hubbard documents and get him
>> declared a pathological liar.
>>
>>
>>> Frederic Rice raised this question in a recent post and I hope to
>>>have a more detailed response for him in a short while. Needless to
>>>say, I hold the opinion that the "Affirmations" very well may *not*
>>>have been authored by Hubbard.
>>
>>
>> Since you are a Scientologist, you necessarily have a gargantuan bias.
>> An allegation of bias, of course, allows a very broad inquiry.
>>
>> But putting bias aside, will you please provide any evidence you have
>> that the "Admissions" were not authored by Hubbard.
>>
>> Obviously, since I know they were authored by Hubbard, I know you
>> cannot have any actual evidence that they were not. I am still very
>> interested, however, in what you present as evidence for your
>> conclusion.
>>
>> I have provided a great deal of evidence for my conclusion in various
>> statements or sworn testimony. The cult has never challenged the
>> document's authenticity. Some anonymous Scientologist posters like
>> yourself, of course, have, but that fact too weighs in favor of
>> authentication.
>>
>> The writing sounds like Hubbard's. The historical facts included in
>> the writing match Hubbard's history. The personality and
>> psychopathology evidenced by the writing are consistent with what is
>> known of Hubbard in his life and other writings.
>>
>> So it would be very interesting to see what you have to offer to
>> challenge the writing's authenticity.
>>
>>
>>> Since you posted to this thread and since you were intimately
>>>involved with the Hubbard archives in the past I ask these questions:
>>>
>>> (1) Did anyone else have access to the Hubbard archives during your
>>>tenure as the archivist other than yourself? If so, who?
>>>
>>> (2) Exactly when and where did you first discover the " Admissions"
>>>or "Affirmations."
>>>
>>> (3) Upon discovering them, did you speak to anyone about them or
>>>notify anyone of their existence? If so, to whom did you speak or
>>>correspond and what were the details of the communication(s)?
>>>
>>> (4) Did Robert Vaughn Young know of the existence of the
>>>"Affirmations" or "Admissions" prior to your taking leave of the
>>>archivist post?
>>>
>>> (5) Did you speak with Robert Vaughn Young about the " Affirmations"
>>>or "Admissions" prior to leaving the archivist post? If so, what was
>>>discussed?
>>>
>>> (6) During your service in the Sea Organization did you have
>>>knowledge of anyone who had the ability to copy Hubbard's handwriting?
>>>I'm not speaking of the just his signature here but his actual
>>>handwriting. If so, who had the ability to do this?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> .
>>
>>
>> In answer to most of the questions you raise, I suggest you read my
>> introduction in this post:
>> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/ars/ars-2000-03-11.html
>>
>> And I suggest reading these two posts by other posters. Phineas Fogg:
>> Message-ID: <3db3162d@news2.lightlink.com>
>> Caroline Letkeman:
>> Message-ID: <v0f7ruktf3na2cm8q2stcn5nlckkgnd5u3@4ax.com>
>>
>> And now, will you please provide what you have as evidence on which
>> you base your conclusion regarding the "Admissions'" authenticity.
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>> Gerry
>>
>> © Gerry Armstrong
>> http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

© Gerry Armstrong
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org

 

Thread